Sign in to follow this  
millerx

SEC > UGA

Recommended Posts

I think SEC=UGA should change his name to SEC>UGA.

 

That display UGA had against Boise State was pathetic. This may disparage Boise State and some who don't realize the greatness that is the SEC, but that representation was atrocious and a terrible display of what SEC football is all about. WOW! Just... WOW! UGA really needs to get some new coaches in there with all that talent! That was a disgusting effort from both the players and mostly the coaching.

 

The SEC is greater than that! How dare you tarnish the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, UGA looked more pathetic than I could ever imagine. This is a team on a slide, the talent is there but the will to win and the coaching are not.

 

I will have to give props to Boise for coming into ATL, in front of a hostile crowd, playing against better athletes and absolutely making my Dawgs look silly. The Boise crew outclassed UGA in every aspect of that game and should be commended for their accomplishment.

 

Now, here is what I took away from the game... Mark Richt must be fired at the conclusion of this season. The issues were not issues with personnel, the issues were issues that fall directly onto the shoulders of the coaching staff. Much of the first two to three offensive series are scripted. The players know what they are running, so what happened in the first series:

 

1st and 10 - False start

1st and 15 - blown blocking assignments

2 and 15 - nothing

3rd and 12 - nothing

4th and 12 - delay of game...

 

THe whole game seemed to move this way for UGA on both sides of the ball. Late subsititutions, substitution infractions, false start, bad angles to the ball, kids not in good condition (cramping, not being able to keep up with Boise's no huddle forcing early timeouts, etc...) I know this is the first game of the season and there are jitters, but this was just a very poorly executed gameplan.

 

Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about this game is the lack of adjustments that were made by UGA. The middle of the field was wide open for short and intermediate passes. We never adjusted, never dropped a line backer into the middle of the field, never brought a safety up to jump routes... In fact we were content to continue to play zone the entire game, when in theory we have better athletes, personnel who should be able to match up in man coverage. There was no pressing of receivers and there were numerous missed assignments in the middle and front of that zone. For Richt or Grantham to not make any adjustments while being slowly picked apart is inexcusable.

 

The offense (and I'm being polite) :wacko: The only legit score was on an illegitimate play by a defensive and special teams player, that one play accounted for 2/3rds of our ground game. Once again, UGA should have one of the dominant O lines in NCAA... they got puhed around by a group that was smaller and didn't have a single 4 or 5 star player (and would be willing to bet not even a 3 star recruit.) We had no time to pass and there were NO rushing lanes being opened up in the middle. This was a horribly, horribly coached and conditioned offense.

 

If these issues were isolated tot his game it wouldn't be such a problem, every one has a bad game, but this is a trend I have noticeed for YEARS. Too many stupid penalties, lack of time/game management, horrible conditioning, and the inability (or lack of desire) to make adjustments at the half. I can't count how many times UGA has been inthe lead at half and end up losing the game (Auburn last year.) We go in content with the lead and make no adjustments to what the opponent has changed up. We have started off numerous games with timeouts or penalties on the first play. We have lost some close ones simple by not having any time outs, poor time management.

 

Any way, now I'm just rambling and being redundant... They need to fire the muther fu9ker and get on with rebuilding the program while they still can. Pretty soon the quality of recruits will start to drop and Bama, AU, USC, UF, and UT will take even more of the top recruits from Georgia...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko: You got ALMOST everything right :tup:
Last week I angered the entire mythical State of Boise. I made a few anti-Bronco remarks, and like any passionate fanbase, the Boise faithful reacted. They questioned my intelligence, my ability to write, and my mother’s integrity.

 

In an effort to regain some confidence and dignity I decided to take a closer look at one of the points the Smurf-lovers contested: recruiting. Namely, I wanted to know if there was a correlation between recruiting class rankings and BCS success. Am I as idiotic as the “State” of Boise would have you believe?

 

Or is there some truth to recruiting rankings? Last week I contended that there is a relationship between recruiting class rankings and talent while the Boise State fans said things like, “Since when did college football become about recruiting?”

 

To examine this subject I investigated the top recruiting classes (according to Scout.com) and the top finishers within the BCS to see if any sort of pattern was visible.

 

Over the past five seasons 10 teams have been ranked in the top 25 of the final BCS poll on at least four occasions. Those teams include Ohio State, Florida, LSU, USC, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Texas, and Boise State. That is a pretty elite group that one could argue represents the most consistently impressive teams in the nation over the past five seasons.

 

Interestingly, nine of those schools had an average recruiting class ranking in the top third of the nation from 2006-2010. Below are their average class rankings for that five year period.

 

* USC - 5.2

* LSU - 5.8

* Texas - 7.2

* Florida - 7.4

* Ohio State - 10.8

* Oklahoma - 12.4

* Virginia Tech - 30.8

* West Virginia - 32.4

* Wisconsin - 37.6

 

107334485_crop_340x234 USC has brought in some good recruiting classes with a little extra help.

Jeff Gross/Getty Images

 

These nine teams have a combined average recruiting class rank of 16.6 from 2006-2010. While three teams did not have an average inside the top-25, those three schools (Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Virginia Tech) accounted for four individual classes ranked in the top-25 over that five year period. The lowest individual class ranking by any of these teams was Virginia Tech’s ranking of 56 in 2006.

 

Here are Boise State’s recruiting classes over the same time period:

 

* 2006 - 78

* 2007 - 57

* 2008 - 64

* 2009 - 60

* 2010 - 97

* Average - 71.2

 

Boise State’s recruiting numbers are in fact below average—and that’s not merely an opinion. With no other qualifiers aside from the sheer quantity of FBS teams, Boise State is averaging a sub-median recruiting class. Additionally, the Broncos’ best recruiting class is worse than the lowest class of the other nine schools who have been a consistent presence in the BCS top 25.

 

Furthermore, five different universities have finished in the BCS Top 10 on three or more occasions over the past five seasons. Ohio State, Oklahoma, Florida, and USC represent 15 combined top-10 finishes in the last five years and 19 top-25 recruiting classes over the same time period. The fifth such school, Boise State, represents four top-10 BCS finishes and zero top-25 recruiting classes.

 

What gives? Maybe Boise State really isn’t that talented. Or maybe Chris Petersen is a miracle worker the likes of which we have not seen since Anne Sullivan.

 

Of course, the point will be made that recruiting rankings are arbitrary and don’t really mean anything, but I’m not sure that’s the case. There are quite a few people in the world of football who make a lot of money and whose livelihood relies on these rankings, namely college coaches.

 

It’s kind of hard for me to believe that the players recruited by teams that are consistently good just happen to have a high rating according to recruiting experts. And, if players were just assigned a high rating based on what school recruited them and not by their true potential, wouldn’t there be a lot more parity in college football?

 

The BCS Championship Game (the fifth BCS Bowl) was added in 2007. Interestingly, but not necessarily ironically, every team that has been featured in that game had a top-10 class between 2006 and 2010. Furthermore, those participating schools (Florida 2x, Ohio State 2x, LSU, Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas, Auburn, and Oregon) combined for 24 top-10 classes over that time period. Those same schools also appeared in eleven additional BCS Bowls. So eight schools had 24 top-10 recruiting classes and appeared in 21 BCS Bowls over a five-year period.

 

Overall, 12 of the 15 schools with more than one top-10 recruiting class in the five-year span I looked at made at least one BCS Bowl game appearance. The three schools that failed to do so were Florida State, Tennessee, and UCLA. All three of these schools have experienced at least one coaching change over the past five years.

 

If I wanted to lead my team to a BCS Bowl I’d do two things: recruit top-10 classes and hold onto my coaching staff. After all, these recruiting classes seem to be living up to their billing most of the time.

 

It is also worth noting that many of these talent evaluations stick with players through their college tenures and into their professional football careers. In other words, a lot of these individual players do, in fact, live up to their hype. Below is how the first round NFL Draft Picks in 2010 were ranked in their respective recruiting classes coming out of high school.

 

* 5-Star Ranking: 6 Players Drafted

* 4-Star Ranking: 17 Players Drafted

* 3-Star Ranking: 6 Players Drafted

* 2-Star Ranking: 2 Players Drafted

* 1-Star Ranking: 1 Player Drafted

* Average: 3.78 Stars

 

 

 

NFL executives and coaches are drafting great college players, and guess what. Those great college players were almost always highly rated recruits.

 

I happen to believe in recruiting rankings, and accordingly have formed a few opinions.

 

With regards to the Georgia Bulldogs: this recent dip in production needs to end in 2011 or the Dawgs need to find a man who can coach players up to their potential. While the last five years may not look all that bad for UGA on paper, the last two have been atrocious.

 

With regards to the Boise State Broncos: either Chris Petersen is a miracle worker or the Broncos merely have a keen ability to win one or two big games every year if the other team doesn’t bring its best game. No matter how you slice it, the talent is not there. So either Petersen is the greatest coach to ever grace a college sideline, blue or otherwise, or the Broncos are getting lucky and catching teams at their worst.

Edited by delusions of granduer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you forgot their worst action on the field: wearing those pseudo USFL uniforms. And you've got ten more flavors to go? Have fun. :wacko:

Edited by Pope Flick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How funny is it that everyone jumps on the "how bad is Georgia" bandwagon when powerhouse Boise State dismantles them in Georgia's backyard yet Georgia beats 2 out of the 3 SEC teams they face and their one loss to South Carolina was a narrow 3 point loss. How about "how bad is the SEC this year" :tup::wacko:

Edited by theprofessor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How funny is it that everyone jumps on the "how bad is Georgia" bandwagon when powerhouse Boise State dismantles them in Georgia's backyard yet Georgia beats 2 out of the 3 SEC teams they face and their one loss to South Carolina was a narrow 3 point loss. How about "how bad is the SEC this year" :tup::wacko:

 

I guess we'll see how bad the SEC is this year when they play for their 6th consecutive Natl Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess we'll see how bad the SEC is this year when they play for their 6th consecutive Natl Championship.

 

Go Georgia!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I do. I just love to cheer for the (under)dogs.

 

I guess this explains why you cheer against the SEC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess this explains why you cheer against the SEC.

 

Sorry, you're wrong. I don't cheer "against" a conference. I just think the SEC hype machine is kind of a joke at times.

 

Since your firmly entrenched in the SEC bandwagon any idea when the investigations and subsequent sanctions will start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, you're wrong. I don't cheer "against" a conference. I just think the SEC hype machine is kind of a joke at times.

 

Since your firmly entrenched in the SEC bandwagon any idea when the investigations and subsequent sanctions will start?

 

careful. your envy is showing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From DoG's post:

Boise State’s recruiting numbers are in fact below average—and that’s not merely an opinion.

 

Actually, it is opinion. Sure, it becomes math at some point. Once the opinions of dudes who rank these classes are quantified, then it becomes a number.

 

But these rankings are not based in fact, they're based in opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, you're wrong. I don't cheer "against" a conference. I just think the SEC hype machine is kind of a joke at times.

 

Since your firmly entrenched in the SEC bandwagon any idea when the investigations and subsequent sanctions will start?

 

The sanctions will occur right after they complete the investigations against UCLA, Oregon, Miami, OSU, and Boise.

 

SEC hupe machine?!?!?!!? I would think that when a conference wins 6 (one could argue it could have been 7 with AU's undefeated season in 2005 and not being able to play in the NC game) of the last 10 national titles it goes from hype to reality that the conference is stacked and deserves much credit. It is hype when a team is ranked annually in the top 10, or no. 1 (see OU, OSU, USC, ND, UM, TX, VT, The U, Neb, Oregon, UGA :wacko: ...) and falls short of their destiny on a regular basis.

 

How can you argue against the power of the SEC as a conference? Over the past decade UF, LSU, Bama and Auburn have won national championships. Different teams from the same conference. No other conference has had more than one team win the BCS over the past decade. And, since the inception of the BCS only two other conferences (ACC and Big XII) have had 2 different teams win the tilte, while 5 SEC programs have won the title.

 

Certainly the SEC and their individual teams have had down seasons over that stretch, but, they always seem to have a team, or two, that are among the nation's elite and prove it in post season match ups against other elite schools.

 

Let's see what the SEC has done in BCS games since 2002:

 

2002:

LSU 47 - Ill. 34

UF 56 - MD 23

 

2003:

UGA 26 - FSU 13

 

2004:

LSU 21 - Okie 14

 

2005:

AU 16 - VT 13

 

2006:

WV 38 - UGA 35

 

2007:

UF 41 - TOSU 14

LSU 41 - ND 14

 

2008:

LSU 38 - TOSU 24

UGA 41 - Haw 10

 

2009:

UF 24 - Okie 14

UTAH 31 - Bama 17

 

2010:

Bama 37 - TX 21

UF 51 - Cin 24

 

2011:

AU 22 - Ore 19

TOSU 31 - Arkie 26

 

As a conference in BCS games the SEC has lost 3 of the 16 games in which they played. Yeah, it's all about the hype and nothing that they have done on the field.

Edited by SEC=UGA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it's all about the hype and nothing that they have done on the field.

 

My comment was more about the "over the top" hype coming from SEC fans about the strength of their conference. I have always agreed that the SEC has been the strongest conference, top to bottom, in college football over the last 5-6 years. I think this year though that the gap is closing as the lower half of the conference isn't as strong as years past.

 

Carry on with the hype ..... :wacko: SEC, SEC, SEC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My comment was more about the "over the top" hype coming from SEC fans about the strength of their conference. I have always agreed that the SEC has been the strongest conference, top to bottom, in college football over the last 5-6 years. I think this year though that the gap is closing as the lower half of the conference isn't as strong as years past.

 

Carry on with the hype ..... :wacko: SEC, SEC, SEC

 

I would agree that the lower half, or 2/3, even, has lost some power over the past three + seasons. And the gap between all schools is closing. It seems each year a USF, Lousiville, Cincinnatti, PItt, Boise, TCU, K. St., Okie St., TX Tech, Stanford, Mich. St., etc... non-tradtional powerhouse will come out of nowhere and field a VERY respectable team.

 

Also, I think kids are beginning to see that they can hit the NFL coming out of these second tier schools, something that did not happen in the past, and opt to go there to get more playing time and have a better opportunity to shine. This is something that didn't happen as much in the past.

 

Though, I would like to see a stst line of players in the NFL out of SEC schools vs. the other conferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perfect example :lol:

 

 

How bout' the "real" Dawgs! :wacko::tup:

 

Interesting History:

Washington began calling themselves the Huskies in 1922, UGA the Bulldogs in 1921. From the best I can gather, it seems Yale is the real and original "dawg"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though, I would like to see a stst line of players in the NFL out of SEC schools vs. the other conferences.

I would like to see that also. How the SEC, Pac-10 and Big-10 have stacked up over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see that also. How the SEC, Pac-10 and Big-10 have stacked up over the years.

Here's the last five drafts (well, last five drafts when this article was written in Jan 2010, so not exactly)

 

SEC : 187

ACC : 184

Big 10 : 159

Pac-10 : 159

Big 12 : 148

Football Championship Subdivision : 90

Big East : 89

Mountain West : 61

Conference USA : 44

MAC : 44

WAC : 44

Division II : 25

Independents : 18

Sun Belt : 13

Division III : 4

Canada : 1

Community College : 1

NAIA : 1

 

And First rounders...

 

SEC : 39

ACC : 35

Big 10 : 26

Big 12 : 20

Pac-10 : 18

Big East : 8

Conference USA : 3

MAC : 2

Sun Belt : 2

WAC : 2

Football Championship Subdivision : 2

Independent : 1

Mountain West : 1

 

link

 

That the ACC finishes as high as they do in this regard should render the metric borderline useless when determining what conference is the best in college ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From DoG's post:

 

 

Actually, it is opinion. Sure, it becomes math at some point. Once the opinions of dudes who rank these classes are quantified, then it becomes a number.

 

But these rankings are not based in fact, they're based in opinion.

That's not the point of the article. The point of the article is that the teams that actually end up at the top year in and year out are the ones who the "opinions" have had as the strongest recruiting classes... This is obviously not a pure predictor of success, with busts, overpeformers and coaches having an affect, but it is no coincidence that the top teams are getting the "top" guys....

 

Even though there are always busts and surprises, recruiting rankings still remain a pretty accurate indication of the talent level of the team... I don't think anyone will watch UGA at their best and say they're nothing but a bunch of no-talent bums. It's what you do (or don't do) with that talent that makes a difference, but I have not seen much indication that is contrary to the theme of that article, that suggests that recruiting doesn't accurately predict who's getting more ultra-talented players on roster.

Edited by delusions of granduer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the last five drafts (well, last five drafts when this article was written in Jan 2010, so not exactly)

 

SEC : 187

ACC : 184

Big 10 : 159

Pac-10 : 159

Big 12 : 148

Football Championship Subdivision : 90

Big East : 89

Mountain West : 61

Conference USA : 44

MAC : 44

WAC : 44

Division II : 25

Independents : 18

Sun Belt : 13

Division III : 4

Canada : 1

Community College : 1

NAIA : 1

 

And First rounders...

 

SEC : 39

ACC : 35

Big 10 : 26

Big 12 : 20

Pac-10 : 18

Big East : 8

Conference USA : 3

MAC : 2

Sun Belt : 2

WAC : 2

Football Championship Subdivision : 2

Independent : 1

Mountain West : 1

 

link

 

That the ACC finishes as high as they do in this regard should render the metric borderline useless when determining what conference is the best in college ball.

 

Pretty much what I thought with the exception of the ACC :wacko: .Last 5 drafts the Pac-10 and Big-10 came out on top with the SEC and ACC a close 3rd and 4th respectively:

 

Pac-10 = 15.9

Big-10 = 15.9

SEC = 15.5

ACC = 15.3

 

1st rounders, the SEC leads:

 

SEC = 3.2

ACC = 2.9

Big 10 = 2.6

Pac 10 = 1.8

Big 12 = 1.6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.